Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
ATZ-Fachkongress

Chassis.tech plus 2024


4 Kongresse in einer Veranstaltung

Treffen Sie in München die Fachleute von Chassis, Lenkung, Bremsen sowie Reifen/Räder.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Can Formal Methods Improve the Efficiency of Code Reviews? Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2016 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Perspectives of Model Transformation Reuse

verfasst von : Marsha Chechik, Michalis Famelis, Rick Salay, Daniel Strüber

Erschienen in: Integrated Formal Methods

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Model Transformations have been called the “heart and soul” of Model-Driven software development. However, they take a lot of effort to build, verify, analyze, and debug. It is thus imperative to develop good reuse strategies that address issues specific to model transformations. Some of the effective reuse strategies are adopted from other domains, specifically, programming languages. Others are custom developed for models. In this paper, we survey techiques from both categories.
Specifically, we present two techniques adoped from the PL world: subtyping and mapping, and then two techniques, lifting and aggregating, that are novel in the modeling world. Subtyping is a way to reuse a transformation for different - but similar - input modelling languages. Mapping a transformation designed for single models reuses it for model collections, such as megamodels. Lifting a transformation reuses it for aggregate representations of models, such as product lines. Aggregating reuses both transformation fragments (during transformation creation) and partial execution results (during transformation execution) across multiple transformations.
We then point to potential new directions for research in reuse that draw on the strengths of the programming and the modeling worlds.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Symbolic Computation and Automated Reasoning for Program Analysis
Nächstes Kapitel On Type Checking Delta-Oriented Product Lines
Fußnoten
1
The general case allows moving the action if it is present in all incoming transitions but we limit it to two transitions for simplicity.
 
Literatur
1.
Arendt, T., Biermann, E., Jurack, S., Krause, C., Taentzer, G.: Henshin: advanced concepts and tools for in-place EMF model transformations. In: Petriu, D.C., Rouquette, N., Haugen, Ø. (eds.) MODELS 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6394, pp. 121–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRef
2.
Bernstein, P.A.: Applying model management to classical meta data problems. In: Proceedings of CIDR 2003, pp. 209–220 (2003)
3.
Bézivin, J., Jouault, F., Valduriez, P.: On the need for megamodels. In Proceedings of OOPSLA/GPCE Workshops (2004)
4.
Clements, P.C., Northrop, L.: Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns. SEI Ser. in SE. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)
5.
Czarnecki, K., Antkiewicz, M.: Mapping features to models: a template approach based on superimposed variants. In: Glück, R., Lowry, M. (eds.) GPCE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3676, pp. 422–437. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRef
6.
Czarnecki, K., Wasowski, A.: Feature diagrams and logics: there and back again. In: Proceedings of SPLC 2007, pp. 23–34 (2007)
7.
de Lara, J., Guerra, E.: From types to type requirements: genericity for model-driven engineering. SoSyM 12(3), 453–474 (2013)
8.
de Lara, J., Guerra, E., Cuadrado, J.S.: Model-driven engineering with domain-specific meta-modelling languages. SoSyM 14(1), 429–459 (2015)
9.
De Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Satisfiability modulo theories: introduction and applications. Commun. ACM 54(9), 69–77 (2011)CrossRef
10.
Di Sandro, A., Salay, R., Famelis, M., Kokaly, S., Chechik, M.: MMINT: a graphical tool for interactive model management. In: Proceedings of MODELS 2015 (Demo Track) (2015)
11.
Famelis, M., et al.: Migrating automotive product lines: a case study. In: Kolovos, D., Wimmer, M. (eds.) ICMT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9152, pp. 82–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRef
12.
Guy, C., Combemale, B., Derrien, S., Steel, J.R.H., Jézéquel, J.-M.: On model subtyping. In: Vallecillo, A., Tolvanen, J.-P., Kindler, E., Störrle, H., Kolovos, D. (eds.) ECMFA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7349, pp. 400–415. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRef
13.
Kästner, C., Apel, S.: Integrating compositional and annotative approaches for product line engineering. In: Proceedings of GPCE 2008, pp. 35–40 (2008)
14.
Kühne, T.: An observer-based notion of model inheritance. In: Petriu, D.C., Rouquette, N., Haugen, Ø. (eds.) MODELS 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6394, pp. 31–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRef
15.
Kühne, T.: On model compatibility with referees and contexts. SoSyM 12(3), 475–488 (2013)
16.
Kusel, A., Schönböck, J., Wimmer, M., Kappel, G., Retschitzegger, W., Schwinger, W.: Reuse in model-to-model transformation languages: are we there yet? SoSyM 14(2), 537–572 (2015)
17.
Lúcio, L., Barroca, B., Amaral, V.: A technique for automatic validation of model transformations. In: Petriu, D.C., Rouquette, N., Haugen, Ø. (eds.) MODELS 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6394, pp. 136–150. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRef
18.
Musser, D.R., Stepanov, A.A.: Generic programming. In: Gianni, P. (ed.) ISSAC 1988. LNCS, vol. 358, pp. 13–25. Springer, Heidelberg (1988)CrossRef
19.
Pierce, B.C.: Types and Programming Languages. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)MATH
20.
Pohl, K., Böckle, G., Van Der Linden, F.: Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles, and Techniques. Springer Verlag New York Inc., Secaucus (2005)CrossRefMATH
21.
Rose, L., Guerra, E., de Lara, J., Etien, A., Kolovos, D., Paige, R.: Genericity for model management operations. SoSyM 12(1), 201–219 (2011)
22.
Rubin, J., Chechik, M.: Combining related products into product lines. In: de Lara, J., Zisman, A. (eds.) FASE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7212, pp. 285–300. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRef
23.
Salay, R., Famelis, M., Rubin, J., Di Sandro, A., Chechik, M.: Lifting model transformations to product lines. In: Proceedings of ICSE 2014, pp. 117–128 (2014)
24.
Salay, R., Kokaly, S., Di Sandro, A., Chechik, M.: Enriching megamodel management with collection-based operators. In: Proceedings of MODELS 2015 (2015)
25.
Salay, R., Zchaler, S., Chechik, M.: Correct Reuse of Transformations is Hard to Guarantee (submitted, 2016)
26.
Salay, R., Zschaler, S., Chechik, M.: Transformation reuse: what is the intent? In: Proceedings of AMT@MODELS 2015, pp. 1–7 (2015)
27.
Schmidt, D.C.: Model-driven engineering. IEEE Comput. 39(2), 25–31 (2006)CrossRef
28.
Sen, S., Moha, N., Baudry, B., Jézéquel, J.-M.: Meta-model pruning. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 32–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRef
29.
Sen, S., Moha, N., Mahé, V., Barais, O., Baudry, B., Jézéquel, J.-M.: Reusable model transformations. SoSyM 11(1), 1–15 (2010)
30.
Sendall, S., Kozaczynski, W.: Model transformation: the heart and soul of model-driven software development. IEEE Softw. 20(5), 42–45 (2003)CrossRef
31.
Steel, J., Jézéquel, J.-M.: On model typing. SoSyM 6(4), 401–413 (2007)
32.
Strüber, D., Rubin, J., Arendt, T., Chechik, M., Taentzer, G., Plöger, J.: RuleMerger: automatic construction of variability-based model transformation rules. In: Stevens, P., Wasowski, A. (eds.) FASE 2016. LNCS, vol. 9633, pp. 122–140. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-662-49665-7_​8 CrossRef
33.
Strüber, D., Rubin, J., Chechik, M., Taentzer, G.: A variability-based approach to reusable and efficient model transformations. In: Egyed, A., Schaefer, I. (eds.) FASE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9033, pp. 283–298. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)
34.
Strüber, D., Schulz, S.: A Tool Environment for Managing Families of Model Transformation Rules (submitted, 2016)
35.
Thum, T., Apel, S., Kastner, C., Schaefer, I., Saake, G.: A classification and survey of analysis strategies for software product lines. ACM Comput. Surv. 47(1), 1–45 (2014)CrossRef
36.
Vanhooff, B., Ayed, D., Van Baelen, S., Joosen, W., Berbers, Y.: UniTI: a unified transformation infrastructure. In: Engels, G., Opdyke, B., Schmidt, D.C., Weil, F. (eds.) MODELS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4735, pp. 31–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRef
37.
Wagelaar, D., van der Straeten, R., Deridder, D.: Module superimposition: a composition technique for rule-based model transformation languages. SoSyM 9, 285–309 (2010)
Metadaten
Titel
Perspectives of Model Transformation Reuse
verfasst von
Marsha Chechik
Michalis Famelis
Rick Salay
Daniel Strüber
Copyright-Jahr
2016
Buch
Integrated Formal Methods

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-33692-3

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-33693-0

Copyright-Jahr: 2016

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33693-0_3

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise